Is it a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

[dmelosi]

Intent certainly plays a part here…

Let’s say you have a “pro-choice” candidate who, in your opinion, is very likely to be able to do wonders for social justice, help the poor and homeless, etc. and is unlikely to influence abortion.

And, let’s say that the other candidate, while pro-life, has a horrible record of wasting tax dollars, opposing anything that helps the poor and downtrodden, etc., and is very unlikely, in your opinion is unlikely to influence abortion, AND, is likely to get us into a major nuclear war.

What then?

In some cases, it’s difficult to know for sure how your candidate is likely to vote, as in most instances, you can tell when they’re lying when their lips move.

Seriously, though, you can’t be held accountable for sin when after doing due dilligence, you’ve weighed the liklihood of all these factors and decided on the lesser of two evil candidates.

Knowingly voting for an openly “pro-choice” candidate, with the intent of advancing the abortion agenda is an entirely different matter.

Newbie, I could not disagree more with you.
This attitude is the same as excusing pro choice candidates and contributes to the “dumbing” down of the evil of enabling murder.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, then we disagree.

If your intent is to elect the best candidate possible, and you really aren’t convinced that this person will ever influence abortion, where is your culpability of sin?

 

[dmelosi]

Well, then we disagree.

If your intent is to elect the best candidate possible, and you really aren’t convinced that this person will ever influence abortion, where is your culpability of sin?

I believe that most politicians believed at one time that abortion is murder. Because of wanting to stay in power or to be elected, most change their views for those votes. BUT to change your view on murder for power because it has become acceptable? I find it very hard to believe any politician who thinks that murder is good.

If they think murder is ok, how can you believe any of their intentions.

 

[Nino]

It is definitely a sin if you vote for a candidate BECAUSE he/she is pro-choice. Otherwise, as most candidates, no matter what they tell you, are pro-choice in one form or another, it’s a grey area.

 

[Nino]

…since abortion…the deliberate killing of a developing baby…innocent of all wrongdoing of course its a sin…would you vote for Hitler as leader of germany since he was also an artist and a vegetarian…do these ‘good points’ over ride his other ideas…selecting Jewish citizens as the reason why Germany lost WW1 and also hating them for bring conscience into the world…the lesser of two evils is still evil…this is an old trick of the insiders…toss in a wrench and let the conditioned ones react like we expect them to!.In 1860 the Republican party was anti-slavery and the demoncrats were for slavery…other issues…the tarriff were around also…the south was closer to England then New England etc…and so it goes…dont let 65 abortions bother you in any way…will Barry Bonds hit over 800 homers before he retires…all the best…Nino

 

[mozart-250]

I think pretty much everyone agrees that voting for a pro-choice candidate might be legitimate if there were no pro-life candidate available.

Edwin

This is a dilemma that regularly occurs in my state.

Not to debate the issue but to point out other alternatives when this dilemma arives.

You could either leave that spot on the ballot blank or (my favorite) vote for a third party candidate. I did this regularly in the VT senate when the alternatives were Jeffords and somebody else.

I would also like to point out that there are distinctions on pro-choice positions. One can be pro-choice on the criminality of abortion but but pro-life on abortion restrictions such as partial birth abortion and parental notification (like my governor).

Since abortion restrictions are the areas where the abortion debate is being carried out today, I could vote for a candidate like my governor over an opponent who is pro-abortion (that is what you are here) on abortion restrictions. I see this as a matter of prudence and practicality.

I simply will not vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion on abortion restrictions.

 

[Newbie2]

I believe that most politicians believed at one time that abortion is murder. Because of wanting to stay in power or to be elected, most change their views for those votes. BUT to change your view on murder for power because it has become acceptable? I find it very hard to believe any politician who thinks that murder is good.

If they think murder is ok, how can you believe any of their intentions.

Again, where is one’s culpability if one believes that this person, if elected, will have no influence on abortion?

And a follow-up (which is admittedly a bit different from the original post;

Where does one choose between two “pro-choice” candidates?

 

[dmelosi]

Again, where is one’s culpability if one believes that this person, if elected, will have no influence on abortion?

And a follow-up (which is admittedly a bit different from the original post;

Where does one choose between two “pro-choice” candidates?

I guess I don’t understand the no influence part of your comment. If a person speaks out against abortion, that is tremendous influence. Everyone that says pro abortion is ok or even if they dont speak out against it, they are also influencing people by telling them that murder is ok.

The influence part of what you are saying does not make sense as actions or lack of actions is tremendous influence.

 

[Newbie2]

Influence as far as legislative influence; as far as their perceived (by the voter) ability to affect the legality of abortion.

So how about that two pro-choice candidates?

BTW, I’ve never and never intend to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate; I’m just playing devil’s advocate (literally, in this case, no? )

 

[BobP123]

…since abortion…the deliberate killing of a developing baby…innocent of all wrongdoing of course its a sin…would you vote for Hitler as leader of germany since he was also an artist and a vegetarian…do these ‘good points’ over ride his other ideas…selecting Jewish citizens as the reason why Germany lost WW1 and also hating them for bring conscience into the world…the lesser of two evils is still evil…this is an old trick of the insiders…toss in a wrench and let the conditioned ones react like we expect them to!.In 1860 the Republican party was anti-slavery and the demoncrats were for slavery…other issues…the tarriff were around also…the south was closer to England then New England etc…and so it goes…dont let 65 abortions bother you in any way…will Barry Bonds hit over 800 homers before he retires…all the best…Nino

The ironic thing is that Germany outlawed abortions.

 

[BobP123]

So how about that two pro-choice candidates?

As I’ve implied above, “pro-choice” is just a political label. The true question is whether he or she will make abortions more restrictive or less restrictive if given the chance.

Take those that voted against partial-birth, for example. Were they all listed as “pro-life”? Yet wouldn’t you vote for someone that would vote against it, regardless of his/her label, et ceteribus paribus?

 

[rwoehmke]

Politics my dear friends is the “art of the possible.” If there is not a prayer in hell that a pro-life candidate can get elected why wouldn’t one vote for the next best choice. It is most unfortunate that it is looking like the voter is going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place in the next election. The Republican party is selling us out even further. I can’t stomach a candidate that discards a wife like a used tissue and in the bargain truckles to the pro-choice voters or a candidate whose values continue to drift right as the primaries approach…

 

[Bucky24]

As I’ve implied above, “pro-choice” is just a political label. The true question is whether he or she will make abortions more restrictive or less restrictive if given the chance.
paribus

?

It would also be prudent to ascertain if the candidate is pro-death penalty or pro-unjust war. These are all Sanctity of Life issues. Voting on just one issue is very risky (and in my mind) irresponsible.

Bucky

 

[Lampo]

It depends. If there are only two candidates to chose from and they are both pro-abortion but differ in opinion when abortion is allowable, I would vote for the lesser of the two evils - therefore, I would vote for a pro-choice candidate. If one candidate says abortion is okay for any reason and the other says only in circumstances of rape or incest, I would vote for the latter and would not be sinning.

 

[rpp]

It would also be prudent to ascertain if the candidate is pro-death penalty or pro-unjust war. These are all Sanctity of Life issues. Voting on just one issue is very risky (and in my mind) irresponsible.

Bucky

No it is not. These are areas of legitimate debate and disagreement. Abortion and euthanasia trump all other “life” issues. And capital punishment is expressly permitted by Church teaching. Those areas fall under the personal conviction and not Catholic conscience.

The examples you gave are in direct conflict with what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in his 2004 letter to US bishops.

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.

Full text

If you desire to consider these, that is up to you. But as the above quote points out, it is a personal choice. Being “at odds with the Holy Father” means **opposing **the death penalty.

 

[phil8888]

My opinion is to give abortion a weight of infinity - 1, therefore making it the highest decision. if someone is pro-life and someone else is pro-choice, you MUST vote pro-life no matter what the other policies are. if two people are pro-choice, then go to the next most important issue. that’s why I didn’t give abortion just infinity, because then nothing else would matter. anyway, it still probably doesn’t make sense.

 

[Bucky24]

If you desire to consider these, that is up to you. But as the above quote points out, it is a personal choice. Being “at odds with the Holy Father” means **opposing **the death penalty.

I have not studied Pope Ratzinger’s opinion on this but I have studied Pope John Paul’s teaching on the death penalty and he came out flatly against it. He also spoke out against the current Iraq war as being unjust.

Please see Pope John Paul’s Gospel of Life. He did not rank the Sanctity of Life issues.

To say that it’s not OK to kill the unborn but it’s OK to murder adults (in the case of the death penalty) and the innocent (men, women and children in the case of an unjust war) is preposterous. Thou Shalt not Kill did not have a qualifier!

Bucky

 

[rpp]

I have not studied Pope Ratzinger’s opinion on this but I have studied Pope John Paul’s teaching on the death penalty and he came out flatly against it. He also spoke out against the current Iraq war as being unjust.

Please see Pope John Paul’s Gospel of Life. He did not rank the Sanctity of Life issues.

To say that it’s not OK to kill the unborn but it’s OK to murder adults (in the case of the death penalty) and the innocent (men, women and children in the case of an unjust war) is preposterous. Thou Shalt not Kill did not have a qualifier!

Bucky

Actually, “Thou shalt not kill” did have a qualifier. If you read the law in both Exodus and Deutoronomy, you will see many crimes for which the Lord determined death was the appropriate punishment and told Moses so.

Yet this is an area of legitimate debate.

And you are generally right Pope John Paul II’s stance on the death penalty. I believe his position could be summed up by saying that while permissible, it should only be done to protect society. And with modern systems of incarceration, that the need for execution was practically non-existent. In addition, this was not an infallible teaching.

I would then point out the number of murders committed by convicted prisoners in prison. There are many cases where convicted murders serving life sentances (read: nothing to lose) will attack or kill other inmates. Are we not to protect inmates as well?

But I think that a debate about such a profound and important issue should have it’s own thread, rather than going off on this particular tangent on this thread. In fact I will start one.

 

[estesbob]

So at Nuremberg should we have prosecuted those who ran the gas chambers but not those who hired them ?

 

[mary_bobo]

It requires proportionate reason. Thus it is a major sin unless you can show that he is going to accomplish something that is worth more than the life of numerous babies.

And what in the world would that be?